Poor work and still not finished

[GKandR4CH]

Redfern is a w**ker, always has been always will be. Sue Sue Sue.

[Chuck Sidfrum]

Originally Posted by Tony

The CML certificate was introduced to stop people being moved into incomplete properties:

From CML website:

New Properties - Building Standards Indemnity Schemes
Paragraph 6.6.2
This amendment aims to prevent borrowers moving into unfinished new properties. Conveyancers are required to have confirmation from a new home warranty provider (NHBC, Zurich or Premier Guarantee), in the form of a cover note, that a new property has passed a final inspection and that a new home warranty will be in place on or before legal completion. The conveyancer must receive the cover note before sending the certificate of title to the lender and requesting the mortgage funds. Faxed copies of the cover note are acceptable.

Charles Church deliberately cheated the CML on at least one home on our estate, they took the doors out of one house (which had been sold), put the doors in another house due to have the CML. Then after the CML removed the doors from that house and put them back where they found them. All that unfitting, removal, fitting and unfitting, removal, and finally fitting again, led to quite a bit of damage to those doors, in addition to problems they already had.

But at least Charles Church managed to do the CML their own special way.

Thankfully we can sleep easy, as "The ultimate winner however, is the buyer of a Charles Church home", according to Charles Church at least.

[Chuck Sidfrum]

Originally Posted by Tony

The CML certificate was introduced to stop people being moved into incomplete properties:

Charles Church perhaps (it would appear to me) still sees the CML as a hurdle to jump, not an opportunity to meet required standards.

They had previously explained to me some of the ways they can gain an early pass (I would say cheat) the CML. For example, taking the doors from a finished house, and putting them on an unfinished house for the CML inspection, then once that house has it's CML, fitting the doors back in the original home.

In visiting an estate recently to give some thoughts to home owners on holding a snagging party, and showing them how to identify problems with upstairs flooring (using engineered i beam joists), I heard many allegations about similar conduct to similar issues we had raised with NHBC and Charles Church (part of Persimmon Group plc).

It baffles me that they appear unable to learn from their mistakes, or is it that they are unwilling, either way they appear to cost themselves much more in the long run, by saving a small amount in the short term. A business model that perhaps only benefits the 'expert and honourable' people they have to control costs on defect investigations and remedial works.

[Chuck Sidfrum]

Originally Posted by blastu2

We remain in a stalemate position with Taylor Wimpey, and now been forced to take the matter to court.

I would be curious to learn more of your current position. In talking to a learned professor I understood that new consumer laws that would apply retrospective (is the that the right word for back dated to 2005) are waiting for a test case (test cases cost much more that a legal case for an established precedent on a previous example/test case - they are also more risky).

I would especially like to know if you have any 'good referenced' solicitors (teams at a particular law firm, with respected named individual in charge) for dealing with claims against new builds, and defects reported in the first 2 years, for which the NHBC may also be liable for their part in either the original sign off, or subsequent mishandling of NHBC resolution claim.

Maybe could PM me if prefer.